Key Takeaways
- Tools, not just software: Mainframe security tools are the concrete building blocks on IBM Z — dataset and volume encryption utilities, PGP/OpenPGP implementations, tokenization/masking engines, SMF collectors, and SIEM connectors that plug directly into z/OS, RACF/ACF2/TSS, ICSF, and SMF.
- Data protection as the center of gravity: Pervasive Encryption for data at rest, hardware-accelerated crypto on the Telum® processor for data in motion, and field-level tokenization/masking form the core of modern mainframe security, protecting data at rest, in transit, and in use.
- From hardening to neutralization: Instead of only adding more agents and rules, teams are increasingly neutralizing data via encryption or tokenization as it enters or leaves the mainframe, so compromised apps or downstream systems only ever see de-valued data.
- Compliance as a guardrail, not the design: Regulations like DORA and PCI DSS 4.0 are driving adoption of strong encryption, immutable backups, and phishing-resistant MFA for host access, but practitioners still choose tools based on z/OS compatibility, performance, and operational safety.
- Integration with the SOC: Leading tools support Zero Trust and DevSecOps on z/OS by enriching SMF records, streaming them to enterprise SIEMs, and vetting open-source components against sources like the NIST National Vulnerability Database.
Who This Guide is For
This guide is designed for z/OS security engineers, mainframe architects, and SOC teams responsible for securing “crown jewel” data. It targets practitioners managing dataset encryption, securing data pipelines to the cloud, and integrating z/OS with enterprise monitoring fabrics.
What We Mean by “Mainframe Security Tools”
We define “tools” as concrete mechanisms that plug into z/OS and its subsystems, not just high-level “platforms.” This includes:
- Dataset and volume encryption utilities
- PGP/OpenPGP implementations for file-level encryption
- Tokenization and masking platforms (both agent-based and agentless)
- SMF parsers and collectors for integrity monitoring and analytics
-
Platform Context (IBM Z and z/OS Security)
Tools must interoperate with native constructs like RACF (or ACF2/Top Secret), ICSF (Integrated Cryptographic Service Facility), and SMF (System Management Facilities). For example, many encryption tools ultimately invoke ICSF services backed by Crypto Express cards, while security and audit tools emit SMF records that are later forwarded to SIEM.
IBM Z now also leverages the AI-enabled Telum® processor to perform real-time fraud and anomaly analysis during transactions, with the tooling fed by enriched events and telemetry.
Taxonomy of Mainframe Security Tools
Access Control and Privileged Access Tools
These tools extend native ESMs (RACF, ACF2, TSS) to handle modern threats:
- Phishing-resistant MFA for 3270 and host access
- Privileged-ID governance and just-in-time elevation
- Policy analysis and cleanup to reduce over-privilege
Examples include host access and privilege-management solutions such as Rocket Secure Host Access and Broadcom’s Trusted Access Manager for Z, which add MFA and controlled privilege elevation on top of existing ESM rules.
Data Protection and Encryption Tools
Data protection tools focus on encrypting or neutralizing sensitive data:
- Dataset and volume encryption (e.g., IBM Pervasive Encryption)
- PGP/OpenPGP encryption for files and transfers
- Field-level tokenization or masking, often with format preservation
The goal is to render stolen or misused data useless through encryption, tokenization, or masking — whether the data sits on DASD, travels over the network, or is replicated into analytics platforms. Agentless, network-layer platforms such as DataStealth specialize in neutralizing data as it moves between mainframe and non-mainframe systems.
Monitoring, Logging, and Threat Detection Tools
Monitoring tools ingest and analyze SMF records and other logs to detect misuse:
- Policy violations and failed access attempts
- Configuration drift and risky parameter changes
- Unusual batch, job, or transaction behavior
Products such as BMC AMI Security and Broadcom Compliance Event Manager help replace manual log review with automated baselining, correlation, and alerting.
Log Forwarding, SIEM, and SOC Integration Tools
These tools normalize and stream enriched security events from the mainframe to SIEM/SOAR platforms (e.g., Splunk, QRadar, Elastic, etc.). BMC AMI Security, for example, can forward SMF-derived security events in near-real time, so that mainframe activity becomes part of the broader SOC workflow.
Data Movement and Modernization-Aware Tools
As data leaves the mainframe for analytics and APIs, tools in this category:
- Intercept and tokenize or encrypt fields in the data path
- Enforce security policies at integration layers or gateways
- Ensure cleartext data does not reach less-trusted environments
Agentless, network-resident platforms like DataStealth can sit between the mainframe and data lakes or SaaS, tokenizing traffic without agents on z/OS.
Encryption and Data Protection Tools on z/OS
1. Native IBM Encryption Stack
BM Z offers Pervasive Encryption, allowing administrators to encrypt datasets and coupling facility structures without modifying applications. Key characteristics include:
- Hardware-assisted crypto via CPACF and Crypto Express cards
- Centralized key management through ICSF
- Support for regulatory standards and FIPS-validated HSMs
Recent generations add quantum-safe options and hardened key storage, aligning on-platform encryption with evolving cryptographic requirements.
Commercial PGP/Encryption Suites
For file transfers and partner exchanges, organizations rely on suites that manage OpenPGP keys and workflows on z/OS. These tools:
- Encrypt and sign outbound files using PGP/OpenPGP
- Automate decryption and verification of inbound files
- Integrate with JCL, job schedulers, and file-transfer tooling
The objective is to keep files encrypted from the mainframe through transport to partners, reducing exposure to supply chain or “in-transit” intercepts.
Tokenization and Format-Preserving Encryption
Tokenization is critical for PCI DSS scope reduction and limiting where cleartext resides. Data-centric approaches advocate neutralizing data before it lands in less-trusted environments, or as it leaves the mainframe:
- Format-preserving tokenization for PANs, national IDs, and health identifiers
- On-platform or inline tokenization to keep COBOL layouts and schemas intact
- Masking for test/QA and analytics environments
Platforms like DataStealth implement this “neutralization” strategy by tokenizing fields at the network layer or in integration zones, so applications and data lakes see only tokens, not cleartext.
Open-Source on z/OS
With the rise of z/OS Unix System Services, open-source tools are increasingly common for scripting and integration:
- GnuPG or OpenSSL ports for encryption utilities
- Python or other languages for log processing and automation
Rocket Open AppDev for Z provides a vetted, supported stack of open-source languages and tools (such as Python and Git) aligned with the NIST National Vulnerability Database, helping teams avoid known CVEs when bringing open source into mainframe workflows.
Tape and Backup Encryption Tools
Tape and backup encryption tools focus on cyber resilience:
- Encrypting tapes and backup images, leaving the data center
- Supporting immutable snapshots and vaulting patterns
- Enabling selective dataset recovery after ransomware incidents
Offerings such as Rocket Data Recovery for Dell zDP and cloud-based immutable vaults (e.g., from BMC) support rapid, forensically sound recovery from clean copies.
Which Mainframe Encryption Tool for Which Job?
Data at Rest on IBM Z: Use IBM Pervasive Encryption and dataset/volume encryption for broad, transparent coverage.
File Transfers & Partner Exchanges: Use PGP/OpenPGP suites to encrypt files end-to-end for external destinations.
Cloud Pipelines & Analytics: Use agentless tokenization (e.g., DataStealth) to neutralize sensitive fields before data enters data lakes or SaaS.
Backups & Recovery: Use immutable backup/vault solutions from vendors such as BMC or Rocket to ensure you can recover from tamper-proof copies when investigating or remediating ransomware.
Key Management & ICSF/ESM Integration
ICSF & Hardware Crypto Basics
Mainframe encryption tools rely heavily on ICSF and hardware crypto:
- ICSF provides callable crypto services that tools use for encryption, decryption, and key operations.
- Telum and Crypto Express cards offload crypto workloads, keeping transaction performance stable under load.
Understanding how a tool defines key labels, crypto domains, and access controls in ICSF is essential for deployment planning.
RACF/ACF2/TSS Integration for Keys
Effective key management depends on ESM integration:
- Keys and certificates are protected by RACF/ACF2/TSS profiles
- Access to key material is logged and auditable
- Security administrators can enforce least-privilege for key usage
Suites like Broadcom’s Mainframe Security Suite (ACF2 and Top Secret) provide utilities to manage digital certificates and keys, ensuring only authorized workloads can access cryptographic material.
Enterprise KMS and HSM Integration
To avoid “shadow key stores,” many organizations integrate mainframe crypto with enterprise key management systems (KMS):
- Centralized key generation, rotation, and retirement
- Consistent crypto policies across mainframe and non-mainframe systems
- Reduced risk of unmanaged keys in application-specific stores
Modern tools expose integration points to enterprise KMSs and HSMs so key lifecycles remain under a single governance model.
Operational Considerations
Operationally, teams focus on:
- Automated certificate and key-rotation processes
- Dual control and separation of duties for key administrators
- Well-tested procedures for key recovery and DR scenarios
Security products such as BMC AMI Security and others include workflows and reporting to reduce manual effort and lower the risk of outages from expired or mismanaged certificates.
Implementation Patterns and Architectures
On-Platform Encryption
For “lift-and-protect” scenarios, IBM Z can encrypt data pervasively at the dataset or volume level:
- Policies applied at storage class or dataset profile
- No application logic changes required
- Crypto overhead is handled by hardware acceleration
This pattern is often the first step for organizations looking to encrypt large swaths of data at rest.
Secure Host Access and File Transfer Workflows
Two complementary patterns are common:
- Host Access Hardening: Tools like Rocket Secure Host Access add TLS 1.3, MFA, and modern authentication to terminal sessions and host access paths.
- Secure File Transfer: PGP/OpenPGP suites and secure transfer mechanisms (SFTP, Connect:Direct, etc.) enforce encryption for files moving on and off the mainframe, with keys managed on z/OS so cleartext does not traverse external links.
Together, they ensure that both interactive access and batch/file workflows are protected.
Protecting Data in Modernization Pipelines
When replicating mainframe data to cloud analytics platforms or SaaS:
- An agentless tokenization appliance (such as DataStealth) is placed in the network path or integration tier.
- Sensitive fields are tokenized or masked in real time.
- Legacy COBOL and DB2/IMS applications remain untouched, while downstream systems receive only neutralized data.
This pattern “patches” the data flow without altering brittle legacy code paths.
Agent-Based vs Agentless vs API Models
- Agentless: Network-layer or proxy solutions (e.g., DataStealth) that require no installation on z/OS and impose minimal MIPS overhead. Best suited for protecting data as it flows between mainframe and external systems.
- Agent-Based: Tools deployed directly on z/OS (e.g., Broadcom, BMC) with deep hooks into subsystems and SMF, ideal for real-time enforcement and rich telemetry but subject to stricter change-management.
- API-Based: External tokenization or key-management services exposed via APIs, which z/OS or integration layers can call. These provide cross-platform consistency but introduce latency and high-availability considerations that must be engineered carefully.
Evaluating Mainframe Security Tools
1. Platform and Subsystem Compatibility
Tools must support:
- The “Big 3” ESMs (RACF, ACF2, Top Secret)
- Core subsystems (DB2, IMS, VSAM, CICS, MQ)
- Targeted z/OS versions and hardware platforms
Broadcom’s Mainframe Security Suite, for example, is designed to standardize management across RACF, ACF2, and TSS environments.
2. Performance and Capacity Impact
Key questions:
- Does the tool leverage zIIP offload or Telum/Crypto Express acceleration?
- How does CPU/I/O overhead behave under peak online and batch loads?
- What performance benchmarks or customer references are available?
High-volume banking or retail workloads cannot tolerate poorly optimized crypto or logging.
3. Operational Safety and Change Management
Look for:
- Clear documentation of installation footprint (exits, subsystems, started tasks)
- Tested upgrade paths for new z/OS and subsystem releases
- Analysis and cleanup utilities to reduce rule sprawl
For example, Broadcom Cleanup for z/OS helps identify and remove unused ESM rules and definitions, shrinking the attack surface without breaking production flows.
4. Logging, SMF, and Auditability
The tool should:
- Emit rich SMF records for key events (access, policy changes, crypto operations)
- Provide clear mappings between SMF records and SIEM fields
- Support reasonable retention and retrieval for investigations
Products like BMC AMI Security enrich SMF-derived events before streaming them to SIEM, helping security teams investigate incidents more quickly and with better context.
5. Fit for Digital Transformation
Evaluate whether the tool:
- Supports modern pipelines (APIs, event streams, cloud replication)
- Fits into DevSecOps processes (automation hooks, APIs, policy-as-code)
- Supports vetting and securing open-source components used in modernization
For instance, Rocket Open AppDev offers a curated open-source stack aligned with enterprise security standards.
Mainframe Security Tool Landscape for 2026
Native IBM Tooling (Encryption & Monitoring)
- IBM Z Security: Provides Pervasive Encryption, quantum-safe algorithm options, ICSF integration, SMF logging, and AI-powered fraud detection via the Telum processor.ibm
Third-Party Encryption/PGP Suites
- Rocket Mainframe Security: Includes capabilities like data protection, secure file transfer, and recovery tools (e.g., Data Recovery for Dell zDP) for encrypted backups and resilience.
8.3 Tokenization/FPE Platforms
- DataStealth: Provides agentless tokenization and data masking at the network layer to neutralize sensitive data before it leaves or after it enters the mainframe environment.
8.4 Open-Source Stack Components
- Rocket Open AppDev for Z: Offers a secure, maintained library of open-source tools (Python, Git, etc.) vetted against vulnerability databases so they can be used safely in z/OS workflows.
8.5 Log Forwarders & SIEM Connectors
- BMC AMI Security: Specializes in real-time SMF event streaming to enterprise SIEMs, enrichment of security events, and automated compliance reporting.
- Broadcom Compliance Event Manager: Monitors and alerts on configuration changes and security events across z/OS, feeding SOC workflows.broadcom
| Vendor / Tool |
Primary Tool Category |
Core Capabilities |
z/OS / IBM Z Integration |
Architecture Model |
Strengths for Practitioners |
Typical Use Cases |
| DataStealth |
Data-centric protection (tokenization/masking) |
Tokenization, masking, encryption of data in motion; field-level neutralization |
✅ Protocol- & schema-aware for mainframe traffic |
Agentless / inline (network-layer) |
Neutralizes sensitive data without installing on z/OS or changing COBOL/DB2; ideal for hybrid and modernization projects |
Protecting data flows to cloud, APIs, SaaS, analytics; PCI/GDPR scope reduction |
| IBM (Pervasive Encryption / Guardium / zSecure) |
Native encryption, access control, auditing |
Dataset & volume encryption, DB2/IMS encryption, RACF analysis, compliance reporting |
✅ Deep (ICSF, RACF, SMF, Crypto Express, CPACF) |
Agent-based (native) |
Lowest-risk way to encrypt at rest; hardware-accelerated; tightly integrated with z/OS lifecycle |
Encrypting datasets, DB2/IMS protection, baseline compliance |
| Broadcom (Mainframe Security Suite) |
Access control, key & certificate management, monitoring |
ACF2/TSS, cert & key management, policy cleanup, audit & monitoring |
✅ Deep (ACF2/TSS, RACF interoperability, SMF) |
Agent-based |
Strong ESM tooling, visibility into access & key usage, mature hygiene utilities |
Privileged access control; rule cleanup; audit readiness |
| BMC (AMI Security) |
Monitoring, detection, SIEM integration |
SMF analytics, behavior baselining, integrity monitoring, SIEM export |
✅ Deep (SMF, z/OS subsystems) |
Agent-based |
Turns SMF into SOC-ready telemetry; strong correlation & alerting |
Detecting misuse/insiders; SOC integration; investigations |
| Rocket Software |
Host access security, recovery, OSS enablement |
MFA, secure terminal sessions, cyber recovery, vetted OSS stack |
✅ Deep (TN3270, USS, SMF) |
Agent-based + services |
Practical access hardening & resilience; managed OSS |
Terminal access security; ransomware recovery; OSS enablement |
| Precisely (Ironstream) |
Log forwarding & visibility |
SMF log streaming & normalization for SIEM |
✅ Deep (SMF) |
Agent-based (lightweight collectors) |
Reliable SIEM pipelines with minimal footprint |
Forwarding SMF to Splunk/QRadar/Elastic |
| Beta Systems |
IAM governance |
Access reviews, identity lifecycle, compliance workflows |
✅ Deep (RACF/ACF2/TSS) |
Agent-based |
Strong governance layer for auditors & GRC |
Access reviews; SOX/GRC alignment; recertifications |
| Vanguard |
Authentication & access security |
MFA, password management, access enforcement |
✅ Deep (RACF/TSS) |
Agent-based |
Strong authentication hardening; RACF/TSS coverage |
Strengthening sign-ons; MFA enforcement |
| PKWARE / Precisely (PGP Suites) |
File-level encryption (PGP) |
OpenPGP encryption, signing, key management |
✅ z/OS batch & USS integration |
Agent-based |
Secure batch/partner exchanges with minimal app changes |
File encryption; secure partner transfers; regulated exports |
| ASPG (MegaCryption) |
Encryption utilities |
AES/PGP encryption, ICSF integration, dataset protection |
✅ ICSF-aware |
Agent-based |
Simple scriptable encryption utilities |
Encrypting files/datasets in batch; internal transfers |
| Open-source (GnuPG, OpenSSL) |
Crypto utilities |
File encryption, TLS, scripting hooks |
✅ USS-based |
Agent-based (utilities/scripts) |
Flexible, low-cost, highly scriptable |
Internal workflows; prototypes; bespoke integrations |
How to Select the Right Mainframe Security Tools
- DataStealth — Best for neutralizing sensitive data in motion as it leaves the mainframe for cloud, APIs, analytics, and SaaS, when you need protection without installing agents on z/OS or modifying COBOL, DB2, or IMS schemas.
- IBM z/OS Native Tooling (Pervasive Encryption, Guardium, zSecure) — Best for broad, low-risk encryption at rest and native auditing using IBM Z hardware acceleration, when data must remain resident on the mainframe.
- Broadcom Mainframe Security Suite — Best for deep access control, certificate/key hygiene, and rule cleanup in large RACF/ACF2/TSS estates where operational discipline and audit readiness matter.
- BMC AMI Security — Best for turning SMF data into SOC-usable telemetry, detecting anomalous behavior, and integrating z/OS activity into enterprise incident-response workflows.
- Rocket Software (Mainframe Security portfolio) — Best for hardening host access (TN3270), enforcing MFA, securing terminal sessions, and operational cyber-recovery, especially in mixed modernization environments.
- Precisely Ironstream — Best for reliable, low-overhead mainframe-to-SIEM pipelines, when the priority is making z/OS visible inside Splunk, QRadar, or Elastic.
- Beta Systems — Best for identity governance and access recertification across mainframe environments, particularly where auditors require repeatable access reviews.
- Vanguard Security Suite — Best for strengthening authentication and enforcing MFA policies on z/OS sign-on paths.
- PGP Suites (PKWARE / Precisely) — Best for securing batch files and partner data exchanges, where file-level encryption is sufficient and schemas cannot change.
- ASPG MegaCryption — Best for scriptable file or dataset encryption utilities embedded directly in batch workflows.
Open-source tools (GnuPG, OpenSSL on z/OS) — Best for custom or internal workflows, lab environments, and tightly controlled use cases where teams can manage patching and vulnerability exposure themselves.
Reference Architectures & Example Patterns
Securing Batch File Transfers with PGP & Dataset Encryption
A common pattern:
- Use Pervasive Encryption or dataset-level encryption to protect files at rest on DASD.
- Use a PGP suite on z/OS to encrypt and sign files before transfer.
- Transport files using secure mechanisms (SFTP, Connect:Direct).
Host access tools like Rocket Secure Host Access ensure the administrative sessions managing these workflows use TLS 1.3 and strong authentication.
Protecting Analytics Offloads to Cloud via Tokenization
In this architecture:
- Data replication tooling or integration tiers route traffic through an agentless tokenization platform such as DataStealth.
- Sensitive fields (PAN, PII) are tokenized in transit, preserving format but removing cleartext.
- Cloud analytics platforms ingest only tokenized data, reducing liability and compliance scope
End-to-End: Dataset Encryption + SMF Monitoring + SIEM
A “defence in depth” pattern combines:
- IBM Pervasive Encryption to secure data at rest
- BMC AMI Security (or similar) to monitor access and policy changes via SMF
- A SIEM (Splunk, QRadar, etc.) to correlate mainframe events with the rest of the environment
This lets the SOC detect rogue user behavior or compromised credentials even when encrypted datasets are in use.
Operational Runbook Considerations
1. Rollout Plan
Start with discovery:
- Use vulnerability assessment and configuration-audit tools (e.g., Rocket z/Assure and similar) to identify sensitive datasets, exposure points, and misconfigurations.
- Prioritize assets covered by regulations like DORA or PCI DSS and those with the highest business impact.
2. Ongoing Monitoring & Tuning
Monitor for configuration drift and evolving threats:
- Schedule tools such as Broadcom Auditor for z/OS to regularly assess system settings against a hardened baseline.
- Continuously tune rules, alerts, and thresholds to reflect real operational patterns and minimize false positives.
3. Incident Handling with Encryption & Tokenization in Place
When incidents occur:
- Encrypted and tokenized data limits immediate blast radius.
- Immutable backups allow you to recover clean copies for forensics and restoration.
- Solutions like BMC’s Immutable Cloud Vault are designed so backups cannot be altered by ransomware, supporting rapid, controlled recovery during investigations.
| Dimension |
Legacy Mainframe Security |
Data-Centric Mainframe Security |
| Primary focus |
User and system access |
Protection of the data itself |
| Core question answered |
Who can access the system? |
What happens if data is accessed? |
| Visibility into sensitive data |
Limited or manual |
Automated discovery and classification |
| Audit preparation |
Manual evidence collection |
Automated, repeatable evidence |
| Impact on audit scope |
Often expands scope |
Dramatically reduces scope |
| Operational risk |
High when agents or code changes are required |
Low due to agentless deployment |
| Breach impact |
Sensitive data exposed once accessed |
Data rendered unusable |
Fragmented Controls and Audit Burden
Legacy mainframe security environments rely on a patchwork of siloed tools that were never designed for modern, data‑centric threats. While access control managers like RACF, ACF2, and Top Secret remain essential, they primarily answer one question:
They do not answer:
- What sensitive data exists
- Where that data is stored
- Whether it is protected once accessed
As a result, audit preparation becomes a manual, error‑prone process involving:
- Weeks of evidence collection
- Log correlation across disparate systems
- Interviews with mainframe administrators
A simple auditor request – such as identifying all locations where PANs are stored – can trigger a massive operational effort.
| Criteria |
Agent-Based Security |
Agentless Security |
| Requires z/OS installation |
Yes |
No |
| Code changes required |
Often |
Never |
| Operational risk |
High |
Low |
| Deployment speed |
Months |
Weeks |
| Performance impact |
Possible |
Minimal |
| Audit friendliness |
Limited |
High |
The Hidden Audit Cost
Preparing for an audit in this environment is a manual, error-prone process. Teams spend weeks collecting evidence, correlating logs, and interviewing mainframe administrators.
Example audit request: “Show every Primary Account Number (PAN) stored on the mainframe and prove it is protected.”
Without centralized discovery and policy enforcement, this request triggers searches across DB2 tables, VSAM files, and batch jobs—often repeated every audit cycle.
Operational Risk of Agent-Based Tools
Many traditional security solutions require agents or code changes on z/OS. These approaches introduce unacceptable risks:
- Performance degradation
- System instability
- Lengthy change management cycles
This risk often leads to organizational inertia, leaving sensitive data exposed despite growing regulatory pressure.
Common Mainframe Audit Dealbreakers
- “We can’t install agents on z/OS.” Agent‑based tools introduce unacceptable stability risk.
- “We don’t know where PAN, PHI, or PII exists.” Data visibility is incomplete or outdated.
- “Audits take weeks of manual work.” Evidence collection is not automated.
- “Non‑production environments are a security hole.” Test systems often contain live data.
- “Cloud analytics expands our risk surface.” Data leaves the mainframe unprotected.
These dealbreakers explain why many mainframe environments remain over‑scoped and under‑protected.
| Common Audit Dealbreaker |
Why It’s a Problem |
Data-Centric Resolution |
| Agents cannot be installed on z/OS |
Stability and performance risk |
Agentless, inline protection |
| Unknown sensitive data locations |
Expands audit scope |
Continuous discovery and classification |
| Audits take weeks |
Manual evidence collection |
Automated policy-based reporting |
| Non-production data exposure |
High breach risk |
Dynamic data masking by role |
| Cloud analytics increases risk |
Data exposed in transit |
Tokenization before leaving mainframe |
The Shift to Data-Centric Mainframe Security
Data‑centric security represents a fundamental shift in how mainframes are protected. Instead of relying solely on perimeter defenses and access controls, this model focuses on making the data itself useless to attackers.
The guiding principle is simple: Assume breach. Protect the data so that even if it is accessed, it has no value.
This is achieved through proven techniques such as:
- Tokenization
- Encryption
- Dynamic data masking
For mainframes, this approach must be non‑disruptive and agentless to preserve operational stability.
Is Agentless Mainframe Security Safe?
Yes – when implemented correctly, agentless data protection is safer for mainframes than agent‑based alternatives.
Agentless architectures operate outside the mainframe, inspecting and protecting data in transit over native protocols (such as TN3270 and DB2 traffic). This approach:
- Requires no software installation on z/OS
- Avoids application code changes
- Eliminates performance and stability risks
Importantly, agentless data protection does not replace native access controls like RACF or ACF2. Instead, it complements them by securing the data layer, ensuring sensitive information remains protected even if access controls are bypassed or misused.
| Control Type |
What It Does Well |
What It Does Not Do |
| RACF / ACF2 / Top Secret |
Controls user authentication and authorization |
Discover sensitive data or reduce audit scope |
| Data discovery & classification |
Identifies where PAN, PII, and PHI exist |
Enforce user access rights |
| Tokenization & masking |
Renders sensitive data unreadable |
Decide who is allowed access |
| IAM systems |
Enforce identity and role-based access |
Protect data after access |
Strategic Pillars of Data-Centric Mainframe Protection
1. Precise Data Discovery and Classification
Effective mainframe security begins with knowing where sensitive data exists. Automated discovery scans:
- Mainframe databases (such as DB2)
- File systems (such as VSAM)
This creates a continuous inventory of sensitive data, including PAN, PII, and PHI, even when embedded in legacy file formats. Classification directly informs which protection policies are applied.
2. Tokenization for Audit Scope Reduction
Tokenization replaces sensitive data with non‑sensitive tokens while storing the original values securely in an isolated vault.
In a typical PCI DSS audit:
- Mainframe applications, databases, and batch jobs processing tokens are removed from scope
- Only the token vault and key management infrastructure remain in scope
This dramatically reduces audit effort, duration, and cost while supporting PCI DSS Requirement 3.4.
| Environment |
Without Tokenization |
With Tokenization |
| Mainframe applications |
In PCI DSS scope |
Out of scope |
| DB2 databases |
In PCI DSS scope |
Out of scope |
| VSAM files |
In PCI DSS scope |
Out of scope |
| Batch processing jobs |
In PCI DSS scope |
Out of scope |
| Token vault |
In scope |
In scope |
| Key management (HSM / KMS) |
In scope |
In scope |
3. Dynamic Data Masking for Non‑Production Environments
Non‑production environments are frequent breach targets. Dynamic data masking provides:
- Real‑time, de‑identified data
- Format‑preserving values that maintain application functionality
- Role‑based visibility for developers, testers, and analysts
| Environment |
Primary Risk |
Recommended Control |
| Production |
Breach of live sensitive data |
Tokenization or encryption |
| Development |
Overexposure of copied data |
Dynamic data masking |
| Testing / QA |
Insider or accidental exposure |
Role-based masking |
| Analytics |
Data aggregation risk |
Tokenization before ingestion |
This protects sensitive data while maintaining developer velocity and realistic testing conditions.
4. Securing Mainframe‑to‑Cloud Data Pipelines
As organizations move mainframe data to cloud analytics platforms, protecting data at the source is critical.
A Zero Trust model ensures data is:
- Tokenized or encrypted before leaving the mainframe
- Protected throughout transit and processing
Even if cloud environments are compromised, the data remains unusable.
Agentless Data Protection Patterns
Agentless platforms function as intelligent proxies in the network path between users, applications, and the mainframe. When sensitive data is requested:
- The response is intercepted
- Data is inspected and classified
- The appropriate protection policy is applied
- Protected data is forwarded transparently
This process is invisible to both the mainframe and client applications, preserving performance and stability.
How Much Can Tokenization Reduce Audit Scope?
When implemented by a validated provider, tokenization can significantly reduce compliance scope for PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, and similar frameworks.
Mainframe systems that store only tokens are no longer considered environments containing sensitive data. This narrows audit focus, accelerates evidence collection, and simplifies ongoing compliance.
How Long Does Deployment Take?
Because agentless data protection operates outside the mainframe:
- Most enterprises deploy core protections in weeks, not months
- No application rewrites or regression testing are required
- No scheduled outages or maintenance windows are needed
This enables rapid security improvement without disrupting business operations.
Legacy vs Data-Centric Mainframe Security
Legacy Security Approaches
- Focus on user permissions
- Fragmented toolsets
- Manual audit preparation
- Sensitive data remains readable once accessed
- Expands audit scope
Data‑Centric Security
- Focuses on protecting the data itself
- Uses tokenization and masking
- Automates audit evidence
- Neutralizes breach impact
- Reduces audit scope
What This Approach Does Not Do
Data‑centric security is not a replacement for all existing controls. It does not:
- Replace RACF, ACF2, or Top Secret
- Eliminate identity governance or patch management
- Automatically fix insecure application design
Instead, it reduces the blast radius of failures and complements defense‑in‑depth strategies.
Building a Mainframe Security Audit Playbook
An effective audit playbook maps controls directly to regulatory requirements.
Compliance Mapping Example
- PCI DSS 3.4 (Render PAN unreadable) → Tokenization with centralized key management
- HIPAA Security Rule → Role‑based access + encryption/tokenization in transit
- GDPR (Pseudonymization & minimization) → Tokenization, masking, least‑privilege access
| Regulatory Requirement |
Core Objective |
Data-Centric Control |
| PCI DSS 3.4 |
Render PAN unreadable |
Tokenization or strong encryption |
| HIPAA Security Rule |
Protect PHI in transit and at rest |
Encryption and masking |
| GDPR Article 32 |
Pseudonymization and minimization |
Tokenization and masking |
| NIST CSF PR.DS |
Protect data throughout lifecycle |
Discovery, classification, protection |
Key Management Is Non‑Negotiable
Audit‑ready data protection requires documented key management practices, including:
- HSM or KMS integration
- Key generation and rotation policies
- Separation of duties
- Comprehensive access logging
The goal is automated audit evidence, transforming compliance from a periodic fire drill into a continuous process.
Evaluating Mainframe Security Solutions: A Buyer’s Framework
When evaluating solutions, prioritize:
- Agentless, no‑code architecture
- Proven third‑party validation (e.g., PCI Level 1 Service Provider)
- Comprehensive data discovery across all mainframe sources
- Integration with IAM, SIEM, and key management systems
- Transparent audit logs and reporting
- Proven performance and scalability
Any solution requiring software installation on z/OS introduces unnecessary risk.
Conclusion: Secure the Mainframe, Simplify Compliance
Modern mainframe security audits demand a data‑centric approach. By protecting sensitive data through agentless tokenization and masking, enterprises can reduce audit scope, neutralize breach risk, and streamline compliance—without compromising the stability of their most critical systems.
Ready to modernize your mainframe security and simplify audits? Request a demo of the DataStealth Data Security Platform to see how agentless data protection works in practice.
Mainframe Security Audits FAQ
This section addresses common questions on securing mainframes, reducing audit scope, and integrating agentless data protection.
1. How does agentless data protection work on a mainframe without installing software?
Agentless data protection platforms are deployed inline within the network, positioning them between end users or applications and the mainframe itself. They communicate using native mainframe protocols (such as TN3270 for terminal access and DB2 traffic for applications).
Because protection occurs in transit, the platform can:
- Inspect data streams in real time
- Identify sensitive fields based on classification policies
- Apply tokenization, masking, or encryption before data is delivered
This approach requires no software installation, no APIs, and no code changes on z/OS, preserving operational stability and simplifying deployment.
2. Can tokenization really reduce PCI DSS audit scope for mainframe data?
Yes. When implemented by a validated PCI Level 1 Service Provider, tokenization can dramatically reduce PCI DSS audit scope.
By replacing Primary Account Numbers (PANs) with non-sensitive tokens before storage or processing, mainframe systems no longer handle live cardholder data. As a result:
- Mainframe applications, databases, and batch processes are removed from the Cardholder Data Environment (CDE)
- Only the token vault and key management infrastructure remain in scope
This substantially narrows audit scope, simplifies evidence collection, and lowers audit costs.
3. Which regulations beyond PCI DSS does data-centric mainframe security support?
Data-centric mainframe security supports compliance across a wide range of regulations, including:
- HIPAA for protected health information (PHI)
- GDPR for EU personal data and pseudonymization requirements
- CCPA/CPRA and other regional privacy laws
By rendering sensitive data unreadable or meaningless outside authorized contexts, tokenization and masking support core regulatory principles, including data minimization, secure processing, and breach impact reduction.
4. Will masked or tokenized data still work for testing and analytics?
Yes. Modern data security platforms use format-preserving and referentially intact protection techniques, ensuring that:
- Data retains its original format (length, structure, character type)
- Relationships between records remain consistent across systems
As a result, developers, testers, and analysts can work with realistic datasets without exposing real sensitive data or breaking application logic and analytical models.
5. What are the most important integration considerations for mainframe data security?
The most critical considerations include:
- No mainframe agents or code changes, preserving system stability
- Minimal latency to protect transaction performance
- Integration with IAM for policy enforcement
- Secure key storage via HSM or KMS
- Log streaming to SIEM platforms for centralized monitoring
- Comprehensive audit trails and reporting
A solution that meets these criteria enables secure, scalable protection while simplifying compliance and incident response.
← Back to Information Home